User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2017/May

Embedded links
Dear user Marchjuly, you have edited the Sung-Yoon Lee article, mainly by removing imbedded links of a list of articles. As reason for that you pointed to wikipedia policy Citing_sources. The first line of that paragraph says that "Embedded links to external websites should not be used as a form of inline citation". The links you removed are not of citations, but of a list of articles published by the person subject of a biographical article. Moreover, I see it being common practice in other biographical articles of academics and authors. Here are examples of two other articles: I recommend recovering those erased links to the list of articles. As for your note that "not every article written by Lee deserves mentioning per(...)". And that is the case here: the list as it is there is only a portion of all of Lee's published works. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 6:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Albert_Einstein
 * Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
 * Embedding links into article like you did is not something really allowed per WP:EL (specifically WP:EL). As you've probably learned from editing on Wikipedia, not everything you see in other articles is appropriate per relevant policies and guidelines. Articles can be edited at anytime and in many cases people just copy what they see in other articles regardless of whether it is right and in accordance with relevant policies/guidelines. The two examples you cited above are not really the same as what was done in the Lee article. They do not contain embedded links like Name of article; rather, they are formated using citation templates or like a WP:FURTHERREADING section. They aren't a list of embedded links for each entry. You can ask about this at WP:ELN if you like, but links to external websites should not be embedded into the article body in such a way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Nilsen
Hi,. Regarding the proposal for deletion of the image on the above article. It was uploaded four whole years ago, and at a time when I and others were populating and improving the article. It seems the rationale in the article's text for NFCC8 has been lost. I left the below info. on the image's talk page:

Regarding the proposed deletion of this image. The image in question was uploaded four whole years ago, and in the intervening time, I (an avid contributor to this article) and other users such as Keith D, Diannaa, Keri, and Signedzzz etc. have extensively populated, adjusted, and tweaked the article to the (to my mind) eminent and superlative level it is currently at. It seems the valid rationale for usage (expiration of time available to charge Nilsen with a specific crime but they managed to identify his last victim on the eve of that expiration and it became screaming national headlines for weeks) has been trimmed out in the intervening four years, although I'll be happy to retrieve it if I can. At the time of uploading, I was in the middle of populating the article extensively, and I or someone else may have added it at a slightly later date. It didn't fail NFCC8 at the time of uploading or slightly later. I can make it satisfy the requirements for NFCC8 again within half an hour maximum if you want. Personally, I won't lose no sleep if it is either kept or lost.

As stated in the final sentence, I won't lose no sleep if it is either kept or lost, although I would like to make at least one attempt to try and get the article's text to satisfy the NFCC8 and as per your questioning the statement of "was literally the 1st time many people saw the face behind the crimes" may be true, but without any supporting citations to reliable sources", I have the sources. Actually, those images were provided by the subject's mother when journalists went to her home demanding images. It is in the Brian Masters book and poss. others too. I'll make it contextually significant again. Look forward to hearing from you. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tags from the image. I have never made such a bold move before, so please don't affix a warning of any kind to me if I am wrong in doing so, but the text in what you affixed basically invited me to do so with the text "You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the proposed deletion/dated files notice, but please explain why in your edit summary". I have done so now as there is sourced commentary of the image ("At 5:40 pm on 11 February, Nilsen was formally charged with the murder of Stephen Sinclair, and a statement revealing this fact was released to the press." and this ref. now used in the article should suffice there). I hope so at least. Normally I'd wait for the scrutiny of other users, as I say, but the text in those tags was beckoning me to make this move in my mind once I had done what I have done. At least I hope so. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are able to added sourced content relevant to the file's non-free use which more clearly shows how it satisfies WP:NFCC, then please do. I don't think what did is sufficient because simply mentioning the Daily Mirror by name still is not something the reader needs to see the image to understand. What is not is sourced discussion specifically about the image so that seeing it actually does matter to the reader. Right now, the section can just as easily be understood without the image as it can with the image. Why does the reader need to see this file to understand "a statement was released to the press"? Statements are released to the press all of the time by public officials, even in criminal cases, but the reader does not need to see a picture to understand that. The information about the mother and the journalist is interesting and if sourced might better help justify this type of non-free use. Anyway, you can remove the prod templates because that's what prod is about, but I do think better justification is needed in order to survive a WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just read this observation now, Marchjuly. To my mind, I have made very good inroads; however, I appreciate your remaining concerns. I'll work on your observations within 48 hours maximum. The images were the 1st the public saw of the suspect, and actually contributed (especially in conjunction with the later footage of him being led into court and giving the impression of a meek office worker) to his benign media affixed tag of being "The Kindly Killer" etc. etc. I'll use that and other info. As I say, 48 hours maximum. Cheers, Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, any sourced commentary you can add to the article would help strengthen the justification for non-free use. The nickname would be a good thing to add if it can be sourced and shown to have originated from the images post on the Daily Mirror. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It can be done. I'll do so when I get back from work tomorrow. Page 19 of the most eminent book on this, Killing for Company will be the bedrock. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Re:File notices
Please stop posting notices on my talk page unless I've actually uploaded the file in question. This is the second time I've gotten one saying "Thanks for uploading...." The file is about 7 years old and I worked last with it about 6 years ago. The notice is misleading unless the person has uploaded the image, which I did not. We hope (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I only added those user talk pages as a courtesy because according to the page histories of those two files it was you who added the non-free use rationales which are/were being disputed. For example, I am assuming that since you added the non-free use rational for File:Lok Satta Movement.jpg for the article Jayaprakash Narayan (Lok Satta) with this edit that you had a specific policy based reason for doing so. The same goes for File:Dick Biondi Day Proclamation.jpg. You added the file to Dick Biondi with this edit and also added the corresponding non-free use rationale for that particular use, so I assumed you felt the file's non-free use was justified. Anyway, no offense was intended and sorry for any confusion caused; I was just trying to let not only the uploader(s), but also the editor(s) who added the files to the article that their respective non-free use was being challenged. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

RE: Kurt Riley
Hello, Marchjuly! Thanks for clarifying about the Kurt Riley page and the notability guidelines. The sources used on that page include The Cornell Daily Sun (a leading college newspaper, ranked #1 in the nation by The Princeton Review in 2013), WVBR (one of the most reputable radio stations in Central New York) and The Ithaca Journal (a notable newspaper in publication since the 19th Century, now part of the USA Today Network). Do these sources not establish notability?

Thanks for your guidance. I'm a long-time Wiki user (since the early 2000s), but I've just joined the community! (Signature added - thank you for the heads-up.) -- Blackandgoldtruthbetold (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You should probably should post what you added above on the article's talk page so that it's easier for other editors to participate in the discussion. Also, try to remember to sign your talk page posts as explained in WP:TILDE b adding you're signature to the end of your posts. If will make it easier for others to know who posted and when they posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Patrick Thompson (artist)
Since it already had autobiography which is similar I didn't add COI when revising the tag, but maybe it's still warranted, albeit somewhat redundant because both mention close connection... — Paleo  Neonate  — 22:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed the redundancy of the templates after adding the COI tag. The COI template might be warranted if other editors seem to be connected to Thompson in some way. A new SPA has just started editing the article; it could be a coincidence or it could be something else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Non-free rationale for File:Wolfgang priklopil.jpg
I'm a little tired of having to "maintain" this image's free use and persistence on Wikipedia. I've complied with all previous requests sent me regarding this, and now after a period of quiet - I'm being asked again to make further changes. The rationale is in the template on the image as per what was required of me last time. The image is justified. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The file has a copyright template as required by WP:F4, but it does not have a non-free use rationale. A boilerplate copyright template does not by itself constitute a non-free use rationale as explained in WP:ICT/FU and all non-free files are required to have a seperate and specific non-free use rationale for each use by WP:NFCC. You can use one of the templates listed in Category:Non-free use rationale templates or write out one by hand as explained in WP:FUR, but you will need to clearly show how this file's use satisfies all 10 non-free use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It matches the critria for WP:NFCCP - so it doesn't need revising. Please can you be more descriptive in why you are including this image for a rationale check --Sagaciousuk (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to be more specific that saying you need to provide a non-free use rationale which shows how it satisfies all of the non-free content criteria. All non-free files need the following two things: (1) a copyright tag for non-free use, and (2) a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use. The first item is just a basic desciption of why the file qualifies as fair use under US copyright law; the second item is a more detailed explanation of how the file complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. These are two completely different things and both are needed . Wikipedia's non-free use policy has been made intentionally more restrictive that US copyright law for the reasons explained in WP:NFC; therefore, a file simply being WP:ITSFAIRUSE is not enough of a justification for use on Wikipedia.


 * This file does have a copyright tag, but it that is all it has. Template:Non-free fair use in is a copyright tag; it not a non-free use rationale. Simply writing it out as is not the same as adding a proper non-free use rationale. Please refer to WP:NFC and WP:NFC for some examples on how to write out a rationale using a template or not using a template. Either way is acceptable as long as you non-free use rationale. Either way is acceptable as long as you include all the relevant information. Without a proper non-free use rationale, its hard to evaluate whether the particular non-free use complies with relevant policy.


 * Finally, one more general thing about this type of image use. A non-free image of a deceased person is typically considered acceptable when it's used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about said individual as explained in item 10 of WP:NFCI. Using the file is sub-sections of other articles, however, tends to requires a much stronger justification for non-free use than just "identification". Just for reference, there have been a couple of WP:FFD discussions about the use of similar photos and the community consensus in those particular cases has been to not allow this type of non-free use. I'm not saying those same arguments are applicable to this particular file and this particular use, but you might want to review Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21 and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26 to familiarize yourself with the main reasons this type of use is typically challenged. Simply adding a rationale does not automatically mean the file's non-free use is Wikipedia policy compliant; it just means the file cannot be speedily deleted per WP:F6. Non-free files with non-free use rationales are being constantly discussed at WP:FFD where the community discusses whether the particular non-free use is acceptable per Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * What's the rationale for wanting to delete it now, and where is the discussion? --Sagaciousuk (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The file has no non-free use rationale; it has a copyright template (Template:Non-free fair use in), but it does not have a non-free use rationale. All non-free files are required to have a separate specific non-free use rationale and those which do not may be deleted per WP:F6. Providing an appropriate non-free use rationale is the responsibility of the person wanting to use a non-free file in a particular way as explained in WP:NFCCE. So, if you feel the file's non-free use is justified in Natascha Kampusch, please provide the rationale required by WP:NFCC. As explained above, you can use one of the templates listed in Category:Non-free use rationale templates or you can write one out by hand per WP:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Arredondo ales's Sandbox
Please dont touch my sanbox, it has been edited by you 2 times. Thank you. There's a lot of stuff to do instead of leaving people working in peace in the encyclopedia there some ones that are always cuting off, stop being one of those.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arredondo ales (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't add non-free content to your sandbox. It's quite clear that this is not something permitted by Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. I've tried to explain this to you on your user talk, but for some reason you are having problems understanding this. So, I will ask an administrator to try and explain it to you instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Arnoldo Conti
Hi, thanks for changing the link in User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/Maurice Grau. I didn't notice your edit, and thought it was my own mistake. I'm familiar with non-free use images, I just didn't look at the copyright notice. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Just a quick observation about the way you seem to want to use this file. Although using a non-free image of a deceased individual is typically considered acceptable when the image is used as the primary means of observation in a stand-alone article about the person in question per item 10 of WP:NFCI, the use of such images in other article tends to require a much stronger justification in order to provide the context required by WP:NFCC. Simply wanting to just show the reader what the person looks like in combination with some content about the person is usually considered to be "decorative"; therefore, it's better to have some critical commentary of the file itself or of the person's appearance to better strengthen the claim for non-free use. In many cases, linking to the stand-alone article is considered more than sufficient and the additional non-free use is not allowed. Just some food for thought when you're ready to move your sandbox content to the article namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, it was going to be merely decorative. I'll rm it from the draft. I'm fairly sure I've come across another photo of Conti, can't possibly remember where. Maybe I will hunt it down and attempt to upload it, but the thought of copyright notices fills me with an irrational fear and loathing. Maybe because my dad was a lawyer. >MinorProphet (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that there does exist a freelly licensed or public domain equivalent image floating around out there somewhere that just has not been found yet. You could try asking at WP:RI or c:COM:RI for help. Some people really have a knack for finding such files, so asking at WP:MCQ might also work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This one by Elmer Chickering should do, published in 1909, so out of US copyright, I hope. Not sure about the uploadability of this one. >MinorProphet (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just going by age alone those should be OK, You can ask at c:COM:VP/C since they should probably be uploaded to Commons if they are in the public domain. If they are ultimately accepted, there would no longer be any need for a non-free image of Conti. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing
I was reading something you wrote on the Teahouse and I'm thinking someone who gets paid to write an article might be able to do more than just find sources on Google that the person wanting an article could have found. Like you said, there might be some who would just do that. But perhaps the person getting paid has studied the policies and guidelines and would be able to do a better job writing than someone who knows nothing about the policies. But then there are plenty of us here who could probably do that and don't ask for money.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember the post you're refering to, but I believe I wrote it just as some general advice. Of course, it is entirely possible for a paid editor to create/maintain articles in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. I think problems can arise, however, when a paid editor or the person paying them start to promise or expect anything more than that. I think there are a couple of reasons why a person might pay someone to write an article, but basically it's probably because they don't know how or have the time to do so themselves, or they misunderstand what Wikipedia is about.
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with paying someone to use their special skills to help you accomplish your goals; I also don't think there's anything wrong for accepting payment for providing a service to someone. People pay specialists all the time to do things they cannot or don't have time to do themselves. As long as they understand that they are entering into a contract with another individual, not Wikipedia, and that there are no 100% guarantees and content ownership rights, a person can can spend their money as they want. I think it would be prudent for such a person to exercise caution and make sure they are not being taken in by false claims and promises, but that's between them and the paid editor. At the same time, I think the paid editor should be upfront with their potential customers about what can and cannot be done when it comes to Wikipedia. If a paid editor is open about the purpose of Wikipedia, what kinds of articles can be created, and how articles do sometimes get deleted, then it's up to the other person to decide if it's worth it. If, however, a paid editor starts making promises which are simply going to be impossible to keep based upon the way Wikipedia is set up, then problems are inevitable.
 * In the end, it comes down to "buyer beware" and understanding that Wikipedia is not the same as a personal website or official homepage. You might pay someone to create an article, but you're not paying Wikipedia to keep whatever is created or maintain whatever is created as you wish. If Wikipedia had it's own in-house "paid-editing" staff, then it would be OK to expect such things. We know, however, that is not the way it works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

re: File:Portrait of Vasily Konovalenko (1984) with his gem sculpture "Grandmother".jpg
Hi! Probably you're right, but I am not so familiar with en.wiki procedures (and with US fair use). The work has been made for the museum, as stated in the page, who released the work under CC by-sa. So, yes, the nonfree template seems useless now. I check it, and eventually remove it. Thanks -- Ruthven ( msg ) 05:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. Sometimes an non-free rationale is still required for the underlying work even though the photo itself is released under a free license; however, I am not sure if the OTRS permission covers the work, the photo, or both. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

About the Rat King sculpture.
I understand now, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 613 The Evil (talk • contribs) 00:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Mid Bedfordshire District Council
Thank you for you edits to articles on elections to Mid Bedfordshire District Council, such as. As a result I have completed a non-free rationale on File:Mid Beds logo.png. In your opinion does that meet the requirement?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to add the rationales, but I don't think this type of usage is allowed per WP:NFCCP. The logo use seems fine in the main article about the town since that is the sourced critical commentary about the logo typically required by WP:NFCC itself is most likely to be found and it can actually be argued to be needed for identification. The way it was being used in the election articles seems mainly decorative than contextual to me. The logo was so small it was almost like a flag icon and I've never seen a case where a non-free image used as flag icon was considered to meet NFCC#8; moreover, the image is not really used to identify the subject of the article per se since it is not election year specific. Generally, non-free logos used as the primary means of identification ofa parent entity are not (per item 17 of WP:NFC) considered acceptable for the identification of child entity articles by default. In addition, elections are sort of like recurring events and using the sponsor's logo (in this case the district's logo) in such cases is generally not allowed per item 14 of WP:NFC. In both of these cases, a logo specific to the child entity or individual occurence itself is typically preferred.
 * Finally, another concern has to do with the accuracy of the logo itself. While it might be possible to easily verify that it was the logo used in 2009, is it really the exact same one used as far back as 1973. Can this be clearly shown beyond the shadow of doubt? All of this is just my analysis of the way the logo wasbeing used and you can always ask for more feedback at WT:NFCC, WP:MCQ or even WP:FFD if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Friederich Wilhelm Eurich
What's the reason for the removal of Friederich Wilhelm Eurich's image from the Bradfordians page? And what is the proceedure to get it back on that page. The picture is over 100 years old. Bradford4life (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * File:ProFriederich Wilheim Eurich bacteriologist.jpg is licensed as Non-free historic image which means that each use of it is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. One of these criteria (or part of one of these criteria) is WP:NFCC which requires that each use of a non-free image be provided with a separate and specific non-free use rationale. This file does not have a rationale for List of people from Bradford, so that is one of the reasons the file was removed.
 * Adding a rationale would seem like a quick fix, but the rationale needs to be valid and clearly show how the particular use meets all 10 non-free content criteria. In general, non-free images of deceased persons are considered acceptable for use as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the persons themselves per item 10 of WP:NFCI, but require a much stronger justification for non-free use when used in other articles. In stand-alone list articles or embedded lists within other articles, non-free images for individual entries are almost never allowed per WP:NFLISTS because the context required by WP:NFCC is almost always lacking and such usage is therefore considered "decorative". The reader's understanding of the sentence about Eurich in List of people from Bradford does not require that a picture of him be seen, so omitting the image is not detrimental to that understanding. A link to the stand-alone article written about him is more that adequate per WP:NFCC and item 6 of WP:NFC. It looks like the vast majority of the entries on that page are not accompanied by an image and some, such as Adrian Edmondson, do have freely licensed images which could be used if desired. So, in addition to NFCC#10c, there are also NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 issues which need to resolved.
 * As for the age of the image, what typically matters is when the photograph itself was first published and not necessarily when it was taken. If you can show that it was first published prior to 1923, then I believe it would be OK to convert to public domain since photographs published anywhere in the world prior to Janaury 1, 1923 are considered to be in the public domain under US copyright law. Copyright law varies from country to country, so the laws for the coutry of origin of this particular photo may be slightly different; you may find WP:PD helpful. Freely licensed and public domain images are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and can typically be used on any page. You might want to ask about this at WP:MCQ to see if there's a way to convert the licenseing to public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-free image use in the user namespace
Thank you very much for your helpful explanation. I had no intention to infringe any copyrights. In the future I'll more carefully inspect which images are free for the user namespace and which ones are not. Thanks for having an eye on our namespaces! We learn... -- In awe  04:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a common error made by new and experienced editors alike so no worries. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! -- In awe  05:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Floyd McKissick Jr
Good Morning, hope you are well. I remove the sentence yesterday as several people have supported doing that back in March. The fact is that that sentence is supported by an article that contains personal attacks on the subject including accusations which he has been cleared off. I am hoping that wikipedia does not become a place where politicians can add any negative thing to their opposition. Floyd McKissick is a State Senator I have a few things to add about it. There are many attorneys and they don't have a wikipedia page. This issue is about him as an attorney. Please consider removing that sentence. This page has been the target of vandalism several times. Thank you. Delphine63 (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page since that's the best place to discuss this sort of thing. Before you do, however, I strongly suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia's Law of Uninteded Consequences because what is written in that section may apply to McKissick. Finally, BLP articles are written about individuals, not for individuals. Article content, good or bad, which is properly supported by citations to reliable sources may be added/removed if there's a consensus to do so. I looked at the article talk page and did not see a consensus to remove that information, so you need to discuss this before removing it again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Hi, Thanks for your contributions on Parbhani Municipal Corporation. If you plan to make similar changes in future, this might come handy: Naming conventions (Indic). Regards ;-) — usernamekiran (talk)  22:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that link. I just was cleaning up some non-free content when I noticed those honorifics. If I come across any more, I'll add a link to the both pages in my edit sum. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)